'1 . Ravela lnnaiah v. 1. State of Telangana

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda 4. Tahsildar, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District' 5. Smt. Gollapudi Geetha @ Scolastica, Wife of Aged- 61 years,Occ- Housewife, nyo H.'r.jI.:+-iiln,' ai"t No 202' Dream Home Kalvani' Durganagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad' -Joseph' I I : l

6. Koneru Srujan Babu, Son of Koneru.Venkateshwar Rao' Aged 35 Years' 'iv; -Fi'N;'- -Occ- 16-2-754t1t1' L'J' Fresh cuts' Aoriculture ,no erJie;', G"add iannaram, HYderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praylg that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pi"u."O to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate *r.]!^91d9^'^o' ;i*"ti"", calling for the records in New Case No F2l Spl Tribunal/0859/2023 "elaagetzoia)rrom the office of the 2nd Respondent i.e. special aoH-C;;" N;. Tribunal, Nalgonda District in respect of Agricultural dry land measuring Ac. 3.00 Guntas in Sy.No. 270 situated at Munugodu Village and tVlandal. Nalgonda District and quash the Order dated 15.03.2025, as the same is being Unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal and against Principles of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings in Case No. F2|OBS9|2O23 (Old Case No. B/3838/2018) on the file of Special Tribunal, Nalgonda, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. E SREENTVASA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY UIRIT PETITION No.1OO82 of2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled questioning the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.F2l Spl.Tribunal/O8sg 12023 (O[d Case No.B/383812018) and consequently, prayed to quash the

2. It is stated that respondent No.S herein hled an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Telangana Rights in Land._ ,and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 197L (for short "the ROR AcL, 1971"1 before respondent No.3, to restore her name in the revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3.OO guntas in Sy.No.27O, situated at Munugodu Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Pending adjudication of the appeal, the ROR Act, 1971, was repealed and replaced by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,2O2O (for short "the Act 9 of 2O2O') and al1 the pending cases are translerred to the Special Tribunal i.e., respondent No.2, constituted under Section 16 of the Act 9 of 2O2O and the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was also transferred to respondent No.2 and the same was renumbered ^"\p^". No.F2lO859 12023. It is further stated that pending adjudication of the said appeal, the petitioners herein Iiled an \, '-=.... Z CVBR, J Wp 10082_2025 application seeking to implead them as party respondents in the said appeal and respondent No.2 uide proceedings No.F2 I 695 I 2023, dated 30.O7 .2024, was allowed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners contested the said appeal before respondent No.2. It is further stated that when respondent No.6 herein was impleaded as party respondent belore respondent No.6, the sard order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.No.22O51 of 2024 and the said writ petition was allowed setting aside the proceedings, dated

30.O7 .2024 and directing the respondent authorities herein to consider the implead application filed by respondent No.6 therein and counter fi1ed by the petitioners in the implead petition along with the documents after hearing the petitioners and respondent Nos.S and 6 therein and pass appropriate orders on merits. It is stated that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the implead application filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.6 were taken and implead application fi1ed by the petitioners was dismissed whereas the implead application frled by respondent No.6 was allowed. Questioning the impugned order, dated 15.03.2025 the present Writ Petition filed. 3 CVBR, J Wp i0082_2025

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. In view of the natu.re of relief sought for in this writ petition, issuance of notice to the unofficial respondents is dispensed with.

4. A careful examination of the records would reveal that the implead application hled by the petitioners was allowed uide proceedings No.F2/69512023, dated 3O.O7.2024. Therefore, there is no power that is vested to respondent No.2 to dismiss the application, which has been filed by the petitioners was allowed and attained finality. The only grievance in the r.vrit petition is allowing respondent No.6 to come on the record and contest the appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had submitted that respondent No.6 had purchased the subject property under registered sale deed and he is interested and effected part5r and if the appeal is decided without impleading him as part5z respondent, he would suffer irreparable loss and great\ardship. I I I I L i ! i i I I I I I I I I l i 4 CVBR, J Wp 10082 2025

6. It is a settled law that as per Section 5 (3) of the ROR Act, 197 I, all interested and effected parties and the persons, whose names are reflected in the revenue records and who are having interest over the subject property are necessarilv to be issued notice before deciding the lis inler se among the parties. It is also held by a Full Bench of this Court in Chinno:m Pand.urangam u. Mandal Reuenue OlJicer, Seritingampatlg Manda.l and otherst that, all the persons, who are affected by the grant of succession, mutation, amendment or rectihcation of revenLre records, are entitled for issuance of notice and non- issuance of notice would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

7. In view of the above and as it is stated that respondent No.6 is necessary and proper party, who purchased the subject property through registered sale deed and since the petitioners herein have already been impleaded as party respondents to the appeal uide proceedings No.F2l 695 12O23, datcd 3O.O7.2024, rejecting thcir claim is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the impugned order, dated 15.03.2025 is set aside and respondcnt No.2 is directed to consider Lhe objections hled by the petitioners as well as ' AIR 2oo8 ep t 5 ( \ 5 CVBR, J wp 10082 2025 respondent No.6 and dispose of the appeal in Case No.F2/0859/2023 (Old Case No.B/ 3838/20 t 8), in accordance with 1aw on merits,

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. I As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To S H ED ABDULLAH KHAN A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 fhe Principa.l Secretary, Revenue Department, I elangana Hyderabad. tariat Building, State of 2 The special rribunar, Nargonda District Represented by District coilector, Nalgonda.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda. 4. Tahsildar, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5. Smt. Gollapudi Geetha @-scolastica, Wife of Joseph, Aged 61 years Occ_ Housewife, Rt/o H.No. 4-12t.tD,.Ftat t,to. ioz, oiea-ri HoirJfliirrr, - -* Durganagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. 6. Koneru Srujan Babu, Son ofKoneru Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 35 years, Occ_ Agricutture and Business, R/o H.No. $i_f iatiil, L.r rreir, bris, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRt. E SREENTVASA RAO Advocate [OpUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad.[OUT], 9. Two CD Copies 'l0.One Spare Copy On\f] Kv HIGH COURT DATED: 0710412025 l t -==z:'== ,/- r.rF- Sl.r "'i /.. .\\ ',', \, /-r k o^ ORDER WP.No.10082 of 2025 18 rlJB 206 T/ o,:.SFAT Cf l DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I+- \6 t